Not being familiar with Aimster from having used it, I think one big distinction is that Aimster encrypts traffic. Even if it passes through some centralized server (which I'm not sure whether it does; if it doesn't there's another difference between Napster and Aimster), it's impossible for Aimster to tell what the traffic is. It could be somebody violating copyright, or it could be somebody trading materials to which that person owns the copyright, or it could be public domain materials, or Free Software, or... take your pick.
And once you lose the ability to monitor your network for violations, it becomes amazingly clear that the technology, and the people who own the technology, cannot be held liable for the actions of their users.
If one is committing a crime with DeCSS, then the penalty should be a bit stiffer.
Why?
What is it about DeCSS that makes it a worse crime than without? Is copyright infringement somehow "worse" using DeCSS over some other program that decrypts DVDs?
If you commit copyright infringement, whatever the tool used, you should suffer the penalties for copyright infringement. Let's not pretend that one set of tools used in a crime are any better or worse than another set.
A random snippet of code I've got more of a problem with however. How do lines 20000 through 20025 of say Microsoft Word 2000 express something?
That's the problem with any "artistic" work, though - you have to consider it on the whole, not in bits and pieces.
For instance, what does this express: do lines 20000 through 20025 of say? The average layman, looking at that fragment, would be unable to see any clear expression or meaning behind it. Put in the proper context of the full sentence, the full comment you posted, it becomes clear that you are expressing doubt and confusion about a particular matter.
Similarly, ten consecutive lines of code plucked at random from a particular program might not be expressive in and of themselves, but taken in the greater context, they just might be.
I thought he meant, why not have the parser spit our an error message in Python, not C. Yeah, if we're talking about C, you're right - it would only pop up in a few rare cases.
However, I can see some other problems with that. In certain C statements (switch/case, I'm looking in your direction!), it _is_ legal to have multiple statements on the next line without being enclosed by a curly brace. The compiler/parser would have to be bright enough to recognize that switch/case is a special case (which doesn't require much intelligence, I guess).
Irrelevant. The DMCA protections only apply for the copyright holder's protection schemes, not to random joes.
Hence, putting in some small amount of original, copyrighted material of yours. The DMCA doesn't cover partial content copyrights - it's an all-or-nothing proposition. --
No, it would just slow it way down, because you'd need to decrypt every filename.
However, given that the DMCA requires no particular strength for encryption, you could conceivably use some pathetically weak (and, most likely, fairly fast to decrypt) algorithm.
Perhaps this would be better suited for something like Gnutella or Freenet, which don't have any centralized search listings.
Maybe not in your dream world, but out here in the real world I have code to write, and it there is no editor that will skip to the end of a block in Python, but there is in every other language that I use, then I know what I'm going to choose.
If you're judging the use of a language based on a single issue with the language, your reality is even more absurd than my dream world. Frankly, by the time you get to looking at the issue of whitespace actually possessing meaning, you should already know whether Python is the language to use.
And if you don't, then chances are you're simply considering Python for novelty's sake - in which case, you probably are just better off sticking to your original programming languages.
I can't think of a single instance in which choosing a language for a particular project would hinge soley on whether or not editors supported jumping to the end of a block. --
Better yet, just encrypt the MP3 file, as well as the name, and append the password onto the end of the filename (so files might look like, "aB33o98#xx2b55.password").
Then, all you need is some descrambling plugin that automatically converts those encrypted files into standard filenames (and will, _CLIENTSIDE_, descramble those files).
Better yet, include some small portion of your OWN copyrighted material in each encrypted file (throw in half a dozen haikus). If the RIAA decrypts the file, they're circumventing encryption designed to protect copyrighted works (namely, yours).
Yeah, I know, it probably wouldn't stand up to legal scrutiny, but it sounds nice for about 45 to 60 seconds of random thinking.
Why not have the parser spit out a 'suspicious construct' warning instead?
Because the parser would wind up spitting out an error for every multi-line block you had. In a throwaway example, such as this, it works out okay. In an app with thousands, or tens of thousands of lines of code, I shudder to think of the number of messages the parser would display.
No common text editor has a decent "go to the end of the block" function. They all have "go to the matching brace", though.
It's not the responsibility of a language to conform to the features offered by existing editors. In fact, it's just the opposite: editors exist to help edit, and as a result are responsible for adapting to new languages (that is, assuming you want that editor to help the user program more efficiently).
What happens when you have a line with 8 spaces followed by a line with a tab? I haven't used python, but one language I used that used whitespace indentation treated them differently, so you had lines that looked like they were indented the same, but the interpreter didn't think they were. Add in complications with people who have set their tab stops differently from you, and you might as well give up right now.
For one thing, different tab stops screw up virtually every language, not just Python.
As for your first case, Python probably spits out an error. But it's analogous to asking, "What happens if instead of curly braces in C, you put in square braces?" Tabbing is defined as something that matters by the _language_, and if you don't do what the language tells you, it's not the language's fault your code doesn't run!
If Joe Schmoe puts in 8 spaces, followed by a tab, it's not Python's fault. Schmoe should've known that spaces are illegal characters (at least as he is using them). You don't bitch and moan about Python's "inability" to ignore whitespace, you bitch and moan at Joe! (Would you bitch and moan at C if some programmer decided he wanted to use straight braces instead of curly ones?)
But is this the fault of the language, or the fault of the editor?
As much as I love vi (and I do love vi), this strikes me as more a deficiency of the editor rather than a problem with the language. Languages should not conform to the available tools, but instead the available tools should adapt to incorporate new language concepts.
Therefore he is justified in making whatever choice he feels the safest.
I can (almost) unequivocably state that wearing a seatbelt, or helmet, is safer than not wearing one. Yes, there have been cases where seatbelts have caused death, but the overwhelming statistical evidence is that seatbelts, helmets, and other safety devices not only lessen the injuries a person receives, but in some cases prevents injuries entirely. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that not wearing a helmet or seatbelt is relatively reckless behaviour, with only a handful of mitigating factors (for instance, some people are just too physically large to wear seatbelts; a 350 lb. man probably isn't going to be able to wear one, even if he wanted to).
As a result, there is usually a disparity between injuries that you could suffer with a safety device versus injuries that you could suffer without. A person wearing a helmet might get a concussion; a person not wearing a helmet might be permanently paralyzed from the neck down. Similarly, a person wearing a seatbelt might suffer whiplash; a person not wearing one might sail through the windshield at 70mph.
Therefore, I think it's worthwhile to analyze each individual case to see whether the presence of a safety device would have made a difference in the injuries suffered by the person had s/he been wearing one. This can be done by any trained medical professional, as the results of most common accidents are rather understood these days - between a coroner and/or doctor, and police officer, a pretty good idea of what might have happened to the victim, had s/he been wearing said device, can be created.
When the medical expenses are paid for, or the court judgement entered in (should the victim sue and successfully win for the "reimbursement" of those medical expenses and/or damages), that analysis of what-happened vs. what-was-likely-to-happen should be taken into full account, and the damages modified accordingly. If Joe Average, wearing nothing, suffered paralysis and will require $3,000,000 USD in medical expenses for the rest of his life, but would've only required $500,000 had s/he been wearing his seatbelt/helmet/whatever, then s/he should only get $500,000. Depending on the likelihood of injuries, this sum could be modified; if it was only marginally likely that the person could've suffered lesser injuries, perhaps he would get $2,500,000. If it was a virtual certainty he would have suffered lesser injuries, then the $500,000 sum would be more appropriate. (As you say, there's no way to "prove" what his injuries might have been, hence the comparisons to other accidents, talking to knowledgeable professionals, etc.)
If it was proven that the individual's injuries would have been greater by wearing a device than without, then he gets the full amount, unfettered. (Same goes for if he was simply lucky, and suffered much lighter injuries than would be expected.)
In this way, s/he is allowed to accept the responsibility for their decision to not wear a safety device. This has no effect on punitive damages; if somebody put tire spikes in the road to cause an accident or other malady, and that person was brought to court, found guilty, and forced to pay our victim $40,000,000, then regardless of whether that victim was wearing a helmet/seatbelt or not, s/he would get the full $40,000,000. But the victim should be held accountable for his or her actions (or lack thereof) when considering medical expenses.
In other words, the victim cannot (or should not) have his/her cake and eat it too. They should not be able to act in a reckless manner and still expect society to reward his recklessness. If you choose to act in a reckless manner, then you should be forced to accept the responsibilities of that choice. What I see/now/ is a lot of people who want to act carelessly, and then expect the rest of us to "reward" their behaviour in the form of footing their entire medical bills.
I do not believe there should be laws against harming yourself, that's your choice and you should have to also bear the consequences of the actions rather than have a governmental body tell you what you must do (seatbelt laws come to mind here along with motorcycle helmets.)
I'm all for that too, but I'd like it to work in reverse.
If you get into an accident, are injured or killed in a manner that wearing a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet would've prevented those injuries, and no third party is involved/negligent, you forfeit your right to sue.
In other words, if you slam into a tree and get paralyzed, and your paralysis was preventable by wearing a seatbelt, you would be unable to sue the landowners for, say, the tree being too close to the road or something similar.
I'll completely for the right of somebody to choose to wear a helmet or seatbelt, but I'm also for that person to have to bear the responsibilities those rights confer. What angers me is that so many people want it both ways: they want the right to be able to wear a seatbelt, but they also want the "right" to escape responsibility by suing anyone and everyone in sight for their own actions.
As it is, Bush won unfairly. The fact that he would have won either way is irrelevant when considering whether or not things should be done fairly.
I guess I don't understand why the election was unfair.
My understanding is that the only votes that weren't "counted" in the election were votes that were incorrectly cast; they were semi-punched, not punched, or inaccurately filled out. Under Florida law, an incomplete vote is nothing. It doesn't count: dimpled, hanging, whatever, it's irrelevant. An inaccurate vote is considered a valid vote, because no matter how misleading the ballot, voters are ultimately responsible for whatever mistakes they make.
Now, what essentially happened is that both candidates saw that the tally could swing either way. Bush basically said, "Hey, count _only_ the votes that are legal under current law," and Gore basically said, "Hey, count _all_ the votes, legal or not."
In other words, Gore was trying to get the court system to say, "Yeah, OK, ignore the law" in order to give him another chance to win the election. They weren't challenging the validity of the law, they were simply saying, "Oh, the laws governing the votes? It doesn't apply to us."
Does that sound "fair" to you, trying to get a law exempted for you because it's inconvenient? It certainly doesn't to me.
If that's the case then, hell, we can just tranlocate to different locations in the universe and say to hell with NASA, right?
Quantum theory says that if you wait long enough, yes, that will happen. Of course, quantum theory also says you'll have to wait several times the lifespan of the universe for that to become probably, but hey - you never said the timeframe.:)
Actually, one of the features of the DII expansion is the ability to run at 800x600.
On the other hand, I can't really say that a game like DII would benefit from an improved resolution in the same way that a FPS might. I mean, how much resolution do you really need to hack the living crap out of a blowgun-wielding pygmy?
By the way, did you also support the U.S. judicial system's ruling in the Napster case?
Supporting a decision, and believing it was the right decision, are two separate and distinct entities.
In other words, you can support a decision ("the Judge was simply following the laws with the evidence given to him/her") without believing it was the right decision ("the Judge was also not presented with X, which very well may have caused her to see the rest of the case in a new light").
But that doesnt mean their software is so inferior because it was released with security bugs.
I think the original question isn't so much about security bugs (as in "Oh, somebody discovered this wierd bug in IE...") as it is about security by design.
For instance, allowing scripts unfettered access to the OS - that's not a "bug," that's a design flaw that should have been caught before Outlook/Windows ever went out the door.
Any
sort of sandbox would have been better, but instead we have rampant viruses.
Other things, like enabling autoexecution of scripts and macros as a default, are fairly obvious oversights.
To be fair, many Linux distros suffer the same problem. Virtually all of them come with every known daemon enabled, which is similar to the autoexecution of macros - it's just something dumb that detracts from the overall system security.
We were not a space faring race when the vulcans showed up, we had just been lucky enough to have a nut job who wanted to try out his experimental rocket around the same time the vulcans were in the neighbourhood.
With regards to such evolutionary technology, a race is considered to "have" that technology when it is first demonstrated to work. It implies nothing about the subsequent use or distribution of that technology.
Slashdot Mirror
"I see. Let us celebrate our arrangement with the adding of chocolate to milk."
:)
--
Not being familiar with Aimster from having used it, I think one big distinction is that Aimster encrypts traffic. Even if it passes through some centralized server (which I'm not sure whether it does; if it doesn't there's another difference between Napster and Aimster), it's impossible for Aimster to tell what the traffic is. It could be somebody violating copyright, or it could be somebody trading materials to which that person owns the copyright, or it could be public domain materials, or Free Software, or... take your pick.
And once you lose the ability to monitor your network for violations, it becomes amazingly clear that the technology, and the people who own the technology, cannot be held liable for the actions of their users.
--
If one is committing a crime with DeCSS, then the penalty should be a bit stiffer.
Why?
What is it about DeCSS that makes it a worse crime than without? Is copyright infringement somehow "worse" using DeCSS over some other program that decrypts DVDs?
If you commit copyright infringement, whatever the tool used, you should suffer the penalties for copyright infringement. Let's not pretend that one set of tools used in a crime are any better or worse than another set.
--
A random snippet of code I've got more of a problem with however. How do lines 20000 through 20025 of say Microsoft Word 2000 express something?
That's the problem with any "artistic" work, though - you have to consider it on the whole, not in bits and pieces.
For instance, what does this express: do lines 20000 through 20025 of say? The average layman, looking at that fragment, would be unable to see any clear expression or meaning behind it. Put in the proper context of the full sentence, the full comment you posted, it becomes clear that you are expressing doubt and confusion about a particular matter.
Similarly, ten consecutive lines of code plucked at random from a particular program might not be expressive in and of themselves, but taken in the greater context, they just might be.
--
Oh, sorry, my bad.
I thought he meant, why not have the parser spit our an error message in Python, not C. Yeah, if we're talking about C, you're right - it would only pop up in a few rare cases.
However, I can see some other problems with that. In certain C statements (switch/case, I'm looking in your direction!), it _is_ legal to have multiple statements on the next line without being enclosed by a curly brace. The compiler/parser would have to be bright enough to recognize that switch/case is a special case (which doesn't require much intelligence, I guess).
--
Irrelevant. The DMCA protections only apply for the copyright holder's protection schemes, not to random joes.
Hence, putting in some small amount of original, copyrighted material of yours. The DMCA doesn't cover partial content copyrights - it's an all-or-nothing proposition.
--
Now if it could just do generic algorithms as well as the STL
You can do generic algorithms in C++ right now - they just usually involve the STL to provide a generic, unified interface to arbitrary types of data.
--
No, it would just slow it way down, because you'd need to decrypt every filename.
However, given that the DMCA requires no particular strength for encryption, you could conceivably use some pathetically weak (and, most likely, fairly fast to decrypt) algorithm.
Perhaps this would be better suited for something like Gnutella or Freenet, which don't have any centralized search listings.
--
Maybe not in your dream world, but out here in the real world I have code to write, and it there is no editor that will skip to the end of a block in Python, but there is in every other language that I use, then I know what I'm going to choose.
If you're judging the use of a language based on a single issue with the language, your reality is even more absurd than my dream world. Frankly, by the time you get to looking at the issue of whitespace actually possessing meaning, you should already know whether Python is the language to use.
And if you don't, then chances are you're simply considering Python for novelty's sake - in which case, you probably are just better off sticking to your original programming languages.
I can't think of a single instance in which choosing a language for a particular project would hinge soley on whether or not editors supported jumping to the end of a block.
--
Better yet, just encrypt the MP3 file, as well as the name, and append the password onto the end of the filename (so files might look like, "aB33o98#xx2b55.password").
Then, all you need is some descrambling plugin that automatically converts those encrypted files into standard filenames (and will, _CLIENTSIDE_, descramble those files).
Better yet, include some small portion of your OWN copyrighted material in each encrypted file (throw in half a dozen haikus). If the RIAA decrypts the file, they're circumventing encryption designed to protect copyrighted works (namely, yours).
Yeah, I know, it probably wouldn't stand up to legal scrutiny, but it sounds nice for about 45 to 60 seconds of random thinking.
--
Why not have the parser spit out a 'suspicious construct' warning instead?
Because the parser would wind up spitting out an error for every multi-line block you had. In a throwaway example, such as this, it works out okay. In an app with thousands, or tens of thousands of lines of code, I shudder to think of the number of messages the parser would display.
--
No common text editor has a decent "go to the end of the block" function. They all have "go to the matching brace", though.
It's not the responsibility of a language to conform to the features offered by existing editors. In fact, it's just the opposite: editors exist to help edit, and as a result are responsible for adapting to new languages (that is, assuming you want that editor to help the user program more efficiently).
What happens when you have a line with 8 spaces followed by a line with a tab? I haven't used python, but one language I used that used whitespace indentation treated them differently, so you had lines that looked like they were indented the same, but the interpreter didn't think they were. Add in complications with people who have set their tab stops differently from you, and you might as well give up right now.
For one thing, different tab stops screw up virtually every language, not just Python.
As for your first case, Python probably spits out an error. But it's analogous to asking, "What happens if instead of curly braces in C, you put in square braces?" Tabbing is defined as something that matters by the _language_, and if you don't do what the language tells you, it's not the language's fault your code doesn't run!
If Joe Schmoe puts in 8 spaces, followed by a tab, it's not Python's fault. Schmoe should've known that spaces are illegal characters (at least as he is using them). You don't bitch and moan about Python's "inability" to ignore whitespace, you bitch and moan at Joe! (Would you bitch and moan at C if some programmer decided he wanted to use straight braces instead of curly ones?)
--
But is this the fault of the language, or the fault of the editor?
As much as I love vi (and I do love vi), this strikes me as more a deficiency of the editor rather than a problem with the language. Languages should not conform to the available tools, but instead the available tools should adapt to incorporate new language concepts.
--
Therefore he is justified in making whatever choice he feels the safest.
/now/ is a lot of people who want to act carelessly, and then expect the rest of us to "reward" their behaviour in the form of footing their entire medical bills.
I can (almost) unequivocably state that wearing a seatbelt, or helmet, is safer than not wearing one. Yes, there have been cases where seatbelts have caused death, but the overwhelming statistical evidence is that seatbelts, helmets, and other safety devices not only lessen the injuries a person receives, but in some cases prevents injuries entirely. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that not wearing a helmet or seatbelt is relatively reckless behaviour, with only a handful of mitigating factors (for instance, some people are just too physically large to wear seatbelts; a 350 lb. man probably isn't going to be able to wear one, even if he wanted to).
As a result, there is usually a disparity between injuries that you could suffer with a safety device versus injuries that you could suffer without. A person wearing a helmet might get a concussion; a person not wearing a helmet might be permanently paralyzed from the neck down. Similarly, a person wearing a seatbelt might suffer whiplash; a person not wearing one might sail through the windshield at 70mph.
Therefore, I think it's worthwhile to analyze each individual case to see whether the presence of a safety device would have made a difference in the injuries suffered by the person had s/he been wearing one. This can be done by any trained medical professional, as the results of most common accidents are rather understood these days - between a coroner and/or doctor, and police officer, a pretty good idea of what might have happened to the victim, had s/he been wearing said device, can be created.
When the medical expenses are paid for, or the court judgement entered in (should the victim sue and successfully win for the "reimbursement" of those medical expenses and/or damages), that analysis of what-happened vs. what-was-likely-to-happen should be taken into full account, and the damages modified accordingly. If Joe Average, wearing nothing, suffered paralysis and will require $3,000,000 USD in medical expenses for the rest of his life, but would've only required $500,000 had s/he been wearing his seatbelt/helmet/whatever, then s/he should only get $500,000. Depending on the likelihood of injuries, this sum could be modified; if it was only marginally likely that the person could've suffered lesser injuries, perhaps he would get $2,500,000. If it was a virtual certainty he would have suffered lesser injuries, then the $500,000 sum would be more appropriate. (As you say, there's no way to "prove" what his injuries might have been, hence the comparisons to other accidents, talking to knowledgeable professionals, etc.)
If it was proven that the individual's injuries would have been greater by wearing a device than without, then he gets the full amount, unfettered. (Same goes for if he was simply lucky, and suffered much lighter injuries than would be expected.)
In this way, s/he is allowed to accept the responsibility for their decision to not wear a safety device. This has no effect on punitive damages; if somebody put tire spikes in the road to cause an accident or other malady, and that person was brought to court, found guilty, and forced to pay our victim $40,000,000, then regardless of whether that victim was wearing a helmet/seatbelt or not, s/he would get the full $40,000,000. But the victim should be held accountable for his or her actions (or lack thereof) when considering medical expenses.
In other words, the victim cannot (or should not) have his/her cake and eat it too. They should not be able to act in a reckless manner and still expect society to reward his recklessness. If you choose to act in a reckless manner, then you should be forced to accept the responsibilities of that choice. What I see
--
I do not believe there should be laws against harming yourself, that's your choice and you should have to also bear the consequences of the actions rather than have a governmental body tell you what you must do (seatbelt laws come to mind here along with motorcycle helmets.)
I'm all for that too, but I'd like it to work in reverse.
If you get into an accident, are injured or killed in a manner that wearing a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet would've prevented those injuries, and no third party is involved/negligent, you forfeit your right to sue.
In other words, if you slam into a tree and get paralyzed, and your paralysis was preventable by wearing a seatbelt, you would be unable to sue the landowners for, say, the tree being too close to the road or something similar.
I'll completely for the right of somebody to choose to wear a helmet or seatbelt, but I'm also for that person to have to bear the responsibilities those rights confer. What angers me is that so many people want it both ways: they want the right to be able to wear a seatbelt, but they also want the "right" to escape responsibility by suing anyone and everyone in sight for their own actions.
--
You're missing the point.
Apparently.
As it is, Bush won unfairly. The fact that he would have won either way is irrelevant when considering whether or not things should be done fairly.
I guess I don't understand why the election was unfair.
My understanding is that the only votes that weren't "counted" in the election were votes that were incorrectly cast; they were semi-punched, not punched, or inaccurately filled out. Under Florida law, an incomplete vote is nothing. It doesn't count: dimpled, hanging, whatever, it's irrelevant. An inaccurate vote is considered a valid vote, because no matter how misleading the ballot, voters are ultimately responsible for whatever mistakes they make.
Now, what essentially happened is that both candidates saw that the tally could swing either way. Bush basically said, "Hey, count _only_ the votes that are legal under current law," and Gore basically said, "Hey, count _all_ the votes, legal or not."
In other words, Gore was trying to get the court system to say, "Yeah, OK, ignore the law" in order to give him another chance to win the election. They weren't challenging the validity of the law, they were simply saying, "Oh, the laws governing the votes? It doesn't apply to us."
Does that sound "fair" to you, trying to get a law exempted for you because it's inconvenient? It certainly doesn't to me.
--
Where are my funny mods when I need them? :)
--
If that's the case then, hell, we can just tranlocate to different locations in the universe and say to hell with NASA, right?
:)
Quantum theory says that if you wait long enough, yes, that will happen. Of course, quantum theory also says you'll have to wait several times the lifespan of the universe for that to become probably, but hey - you never said the timeframe.
--
Actually, one of the features of the DII expansion is the ability to run at 800x600.
On the other hand, I can't really say that a game like DII would benefit from an improved resolution in the same way that a FPS might. I mean, how much resolution do you really need to hack the living crap out of a blowgun-wielding pygmy?
--
You know, my mother says this to me all the time and it pisses me off!
:)
I'd still have given it a +1, Funny though.
--
By the way, did you also support the U.S. judicial system's ruling in the Napster case?
Supporting a decision, and believing it was the right decision, are two separate and distinct entities.
In other words, you can support a decision ("the Judge was simply following the laws with the evidence given to him/her") without believing it was the right decision ("the Judge was also not presented with X, which very well may have caused her to see the rest of the case in a new light").
--
I think the original question isn't so much about security bugs (as in "Oh, somebody discovered this wierd bug in IE...") as it is about security by design.
For instance, allowing scripts unfettered access to the OS - that's not a "bug," that's a design flaw that should have been caught before Outlook/Windows ever went out the door.
- Any
sort of sandbox would have been better, but instead we have rampant viruses.Other things, like enabling autoexecution of scripts and macros as a default, are fairly obvious oversights.
To be fair, many Linux distros suffer the same problem. Virtually all of them come with every known daemon enabled, which is similar to the autoexecution of macros - it's just something dumb that detracts from the overall system security.
--
For one thing, Enlightenment isn't nearly as dorky a name as "Sawfish." ;)
--
We were not a space faring race when the vulcans showed up, we had just been lucky enough to have a nut job who wanted to try out his experimental rocket around the same time the vulcans were in the neighbourhood.
With regards to such evolutionary technology, a race is considered to "have" that technology when it is first demonstrated to work. It implies nothing about the subsequent use or distribution of that technology.
--
it's just not currently realistic to put Linux on the corporate desktop.
Some corporate desktops.
--